This patch rewords the static assert diagnostic output. Failing a
_Static_assert in C should not report that static_assert failed. This
changes the wording to be more like GCC and uses "static assertion"
when possible instead of hard coding the name. This also changes some
instances of 'static_assert' to instead be based on the token in the
source code.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129048
Looks like we again are going to have problems with libcxx tests that
are overly specific in their dependency on clang's diagnostics.
This reverts commit 6542cb55a3.
This patch is basically the rewording of the static assert statement's
output(error) on screen after failing. Failing a _Static_assert in C
should not report that static_assert failed. It’d probably be better to
reword the diagnostic to be more like GCC and say “static assertion”
failed in both C and C++.
consider a c file having code
_Static_assert(0, "oh no!");
In clang the output is like:
<source>:1:1: error: static_assert failed: oh no!
_Static_assert(0, "oh no!");
^ ~
1 error generated.
Compiler returned: 1
Thus here the "static_assert" is not much good, it will be better to
reword it to the "static assertion failed" to more generic. as the gcc
prints as:
<source>:1:1: error: static assertion failed: "oh no!"
1 | _Static_assert(0, "oh no!");
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Compiler returned: 1
The above can also be seen here. This patch is about rewording
the static_assert to static assertion.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129048
This reverts commit b7e77ff25f.
Reason: Broke sanitizer builds bots + libcxx. 'static assertion
expression is not an integral constant expression'. More details
available in the Phabricator review: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129048
This patch rewords the static assert diagnostic output. Failing a
_Static_assert in C should not report that static_assert failed. This
changes the wording to be more like GCC and uses "static assertion"
when possible instead of hard coding the name. This also changes some
instances of 'static_assert' to instead be based on the token in the
source code.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129048
The following was found by a customer and is accepted by the other primary
C++ compilers, but fails to compile in Clang:
namespace sss {
double foo(int, double);
template <class T>
T foo(T); // note: target of using declaration
} // namespace sss
namespace oad {
void foo();
}
namespace oad {
using ::sss::foo;
}
namespace sss {
using oad::foo; // note: using declaration
}
namespace sss {
double foo(int, double) { return 0; }
template <class T>
T foo(T t) { // error: declaration conflicts with target of using
return t;
}
} // namespace sss
I believe the issue is that MergeFunctionDecl() was calling
checkUsingShadowRedecl() but only considering a FunctionDecl as a
possible shadow and not FunctionTemplateDecl. The changes in this patch
largely mirror how variable declarations were being handled by also
catching FunctionTemplateDecl.
Other compilers accept invalid code here that we reject, and we need a
better error message to try to convince users that the code is really
incorrect. Consider:
class Foo {
typedef MyIterHelper<Foo> iterator;
friend class iterator;
};
Previously our wording was "elaborated type refers to a typedef".
"elaborated type" isn't widely known terminology, so the new diagnostic
says "typedef 'iterator' cannot be referenced with class specifier".
Reviewers: rsmith
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25216
llvm-svn: 289259
Summary:
Once a base class has been made invalid (by a static_assert for example) all using-member declarations in the derived classes will result in a "not a base class" diagnostic. This diagnostic is very misleading and should not be emitted.
This change is needed to help libc++ produce reasonable diagnostics in `std::optional` and `std::variant`.
Reviewers: rsmith, majnemer, aaron.ballman
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25430
llvm-svn: 283755
This is a fix for https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=25561 which was a
crash on invalid. Change the handling of invalid decls to have a catch-all
case to prevent unexpecting decls from triggering an assertion.
llvm-svn: 265467
therefore not creating ElaboratedTypes, which are still pretty-printed
with the written tag).
Most of these testcase changes were done by script, so don't feel too
sorry for my fingers.
llvm-svn: 98149
- This is designed to make it obvious that %clang_cc1 is a "test variable"
which is substituted. It is '%clang_cc1' instead of '%clang -cc1' because it
can be useful to redefine what gets run as 'clang -cc1' (for example, to set
a default target).
llvm-svn: 91446
two classes, one for typenames and one for values; this seems to have some
support from Doug if not necessarily from the extremely-vague-on-this-point
standard. Track the location of the 'typename' keyword in a using-typename
decl. Make a new lookup result for unresolved values and deal with it in
most places.
llvm-svn: 89184
Muhammad Usman Shahid